I Suppose I Shouldn't Be Surprised...
Although the public in general seems not to care about the Cheney shooting incident, and I've noted I'm not too concerned over it, the media is not just obsessing about it. They're using it to revive their favorite spectre of a leftist issue from the dead, gun confiscation.
I've decided to stop calling it the pet term of the left they've been using for years. It's not gun control, it's gun confiscation. You'll find web page after web page that has such quotes. Not all the historical quotes are legitimate, like the famed "Hitler quote", but most are. To deny it is to say you haven't been watching TV or reading the paper for the last thirty years.
Now, onto the topic, after Cheney's incident of shooting one of his lawyer friends, the left is now using it, in addition to a "bash the administration" topic, for gun confiscation rhetoric.
The Cavalier Daily's editorial by Marta Cook is but one of those voices, albeit a small one.
While statistics prove that gun accidents kill thousands of innocent people each year, many gun rights advocates argue that gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. However, if these people had paid more attention in American Politics 101, they would see that current gun laws are a horrible interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.
Most of the "innocents" killed every year, of course, have been time and again proven to be involved in gang and drug shootouts, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant. Gun rights advocates don't just argue it is a fundamental right to own firearms. They have the weight of history to back them up. Self defense goes back to sticks and stones, and there's always been someone around who wanted to ban either one, usually the person wanting power over the stick and stone owners. And a horrible interpretation? Well, let's press on...
These wise men gave the right to own a gun to the people in order to maintain "a well regulated militia," which is "necessary for the security of a free State." The vast majority of gun owners today are not part of militias. Thus, the Second Amendment essentially is irrelevant to the question of whether or not stricter gun laws should be imposed. Americans cannot hide behind vague statements of the great men who wrote the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. Misinterpreting and manipulating the Amendment obfuscates the spirit of the law meant to guide, not suffocate, the American people.
You'll find this is the typical refuge of the 90's era propoganda for leftists. While most don't espouse it much anymore, Cheney's accident has I think revived it a little, that guns for self-defense is not a "guaranteed" right and thus the argument is moot and even if they were it's an "obsolete" right. This is the quintessential cry of the leftist. Natural rights like self-defense are "obsolete", but abortion on demand, taxpayer subsidies of dung and urine art, and eradication of religion from the light of day are "modern" civil rights, more important than such childish Colonial notions.
Definitely has a lot of room to talk about minsintepreting and manipulating things. I'm sure she'd want you to think such statements as these were irrelevant as well.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
And don't forget to visit this exceptional treatise on GunCite.
Furthermore, the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are limited the minute a person's right to bear arms takes away another person's right to live. The endangerment of another person's life should make people question what is more important -- an arguably obsolete right, or making American streets, homes and schools safer.
Again, the "obsolete" argument. What's more important? Safety or freedom? You'd think with the Left pushing the opposite end of that so vigorously these days with the NSA wiretap issue, they'd tread a bit more lightly, but alas, no. There's also the little note that even if the Second Amendment weren't written, the federal government still would have no power over firearm control or confiscation because it is not one of the enumerated powers of government. But when has that ever stopped a leftist?
For a more complete history of the modern gun control movement's flowering attention by the media, especially in developing such canards as are in the Cavalier's piece, see here.
That this is not on the lips of every socialist-leaning politician from the local town council up to Congress is because gun confiscation has been seen as a losing issue time and again. Going from de facto control of the government in 1992 to minority party status today, the Democrats only in the past year or two seemed to realize that no one wanted to hear rhetoric that sounded more like Stalin or Mao than American. I say, though, let'em talk. If they really believe such things as the Cavalier so, well, cavalierly assumes they do, let the Democrats and the legions of the Left step forward and again shout it to the rooftops. They'll only cost themselves more power and purchase for themselves more ashes to dine on.
Although the public in general seems not to care about the Cheney shooting incident, and I've noted I'm not too concerned over it, the media is not just obsessing about it. They're using it to revive their favorite spectre of a leftist issue from the dead, gun confiscation.
I've decided to stop calling it the pet term of the left they've been using for years. It's not gun control, it's gun confiscation. You'll find web page after web page that has such quotes. Not all the historical quotes are legitimate, like the famed "Hitler quote", but most are. To deny it is to say you haven't been watching TV or reading the paper for the last thirty years.
Now, onto the topic, after Cheney's incident of shooting one of his lawyer friends, the left is now using it, in addition to a "bash the administration" topic, for gun confiscation rhetoric.
The Cavalier Daily's editorial by Marta Cook is but one of those voices, albeit a small one.
While statistics prove that gun accidents kill thousands of innocent people each year, many gun rights advocates argue that gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. However, if these people had paid more attention in American Politics 101, they would see that current gun laws are a horrible interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended.
Most of the "innocents" killed every year, of course, have been time and again proven to be involved in gang and drug shootouts, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant. Gun rights advocates don't just argue it is a fundamental right to own firearms. They have the weight of history to back them up. Self defense goes back to sticks and stones, and there's always been someone around who wanted to ban either one, usually the person wanting power over the stick and stone owners. And a horrible interpretation? Well, let's press on...
These wise men gave the right to own a gun to the people in order to maintain "a well regulated militia," which is "necessary for the security of a free State." The vast majority of gun owners today are not part of militias. Thus, the Second Amendment essentially is irrelevant to the question of whether or not stricter gun laws should be imposed. Americans cannot hide behind vague statements of the great men who wrote the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. Misinterpreting and manipulating the Amendment obfuscates the spirit of the law meant to guide, not suffocate, the American people.
You'll find this is the typical refuge of the 90's era propoganda for leftists. While most don't espouse it much anymore, Cheney's accident has I think revived it a little, that guns for self-defense is not a "guaranteed" right and thus the argument is moot and even if they were it's an "obsolete" right. This is the quintessential cry of the leftist. Natural rights like self-defense are "obsolete", but abortion on demand, taxpayer subsidies of dung and urine art, and eradication of religion from the light of day are "modern" civil rights, more important than such childish Colonial notions.
Definitely has a lot of room to talk about minsintepreting and manipulating things. I'm sure she'd want you to think such statements as these were irrelevant as well.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
And don't forget to visit this exceptional treatise on GunCite.
Furthermore, the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are limited the minute a person's right to bear arms takes away another person's right to live. The endangerment of another person's life should make people question what is more important -- an arguably obsolete right, or making American streets, homes and schools safer.
Again, the "obsolete" argument. What's more important? Safety or freedom? You'd think with the Left pushing the opposite end of that so vigorously these days with the NSA wiretap issue, they'd tread a bit more lightly, but alas, no. There's also the little note that even if the Second Amendment weren't written, the federal government still would have no power over firearm control or confiscation because it is not one of the enumerated powers of government. But when has that ever stopped a leftist?
For a more complete history of the modern gun control movement's flowering attention by the media, especially in developing such canards as are in the Cavalier's piece, see here.
That this is not on the lips of every socialist-leaning politician from the local town council up to Congress is because gun confiscation has been seen as a losing issue time and again. Going from de facto control of the government in 1992 to minority party status today, the Democrats only in the past year or two seemed to realize that no one wanted to hear rhetoric that sounded more like Stalin or Mao than American. I say, though, let'em talk. If they really believe such things as the Cavalier so, well, cavalierly assumes they do, let the Democrats and the legions of the Left step forward and again shout it to the rooftops. They'll only cost themselves more power and purchase for themselves more ashes to dine on.
posted by Rob Beck | 8:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home